Author: Dave Gomboc
Date: 11:16:16 11/07/03
Go up one level in this thread
On November 06, 2003 at 22:42:14, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On November 06, 2003 at 22:33:04, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>On November 06, 2003 at 20:45:57, Dave Gomboc wrote: >> >>>On November 06, 2003 at 19:50:09, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>> >>>>On November 06, 2003 at 11:23:36, Dave Gomboc wrote: >>>> >>>>>On November 06, 2003 at 09:49:33, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>On November 06, 2003 at 09:33:28, Renze Steenhuisen wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>On November 06, 2003 at 08:33:49, Gian-Carlo Pascutto wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>On November 06, 2003 at 05:45:53, Renze Steenhuisen wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>Depth-First Algorithms: >>>>>>>>> AlphaBeta (Fail-hard, Fail-Soft) >>>>>>>>> MTD(f) >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>Best-First Algorithms: >>>>>>>>> SSS* >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>The distinction between the three (and best-first and depth-first) >>>>>>>>is very hazy, read "Research re: search and research" by Aske Plaat. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Done that already, but as Aske stated: they search the same nodes, but in a >>>>>>>different order. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>MTD(f) and the others are still DF algorithms, the second list works differently >>>>>>>(i.e., the order in which the nodes are expanded is different). >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Or am I talking rubish? >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Renze >>>>>>> >>>>>>>PS: Am I missing algorithms (either important or not)? >>>>>>>PS2: Are Scout and NegaScout equal? >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>They are just variations on the same idea. All fall under the umbrella >>>>>>of alpha/beta depth-first search... (this is in response to your question >>>>>>PS2). >>>>>> >>>>>>depth-first and breadth-first (best-first is one example of the latter) >>>>>>are totally unrelated other than the fact they both search a tree. >>>>> >>>>>Well, no. Read Plaat's thesis. >>>>> >>>>>Dave >>>> >>>> >>>>I have read it. It does _not_ say the two are equivalent in any shape >>>>or form, except for the actual tree searched in certain circumstances. >>>>Depth-first and breadth-first are completely different approaches to >>>>growing a tree, even if on some occasions they grow the _same_ tree. >>> >>>In this particular case, the algorithms search the same tree. Therefore, I >>>think it's reasonable to claim they are they are equivalent in some shape or >>>form -- not in all shapes and all forms, but at list with respect to the nodes >>>searched and the order in which they are searched. :-) >>> >>>Dave >> >> >>I don't believe that last is correct. IE with respect to order. Particularly >>comparing members of the breadth-first family to the depth-first family and >>not just picking one specific algorithm from each. > > >BTW, I hope you don't try to convince me all sort algorithms are >equivalent, just because they take the same list and produce the >same final result. :) Well, what is correct is that the node expansions are done in the same order. Dave
This page took 0 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.